Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does disclose the core behavior—returning either the next question or the final verdict—which is helpful, but it does not explain side effects (if any) such as state mutation, whether answers are recorded, or what the final verdict format looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the input and output. Every word earns its place, and it avoids any redundancy with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does convey the basic call flow and expected results. However, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral details (e.g., what happens with an invalid choice, meaning of 'final verdict') leaves gaps that could cause incorrect invocation, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'question id' and 'choice index' but does not clarify that 'question' is a string identifier (not a numeric id) or how 'choice' indexes into available options. This ambiguity is significant for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Given... return') and names the resource ('question id and chosen option') and the result ('next question or final verdict'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like checker_start and checker_tree. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a question id and an option choice and need to advance to the next step. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as checker_start for beginning a session, so the guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.